All Episodes
Previous Next
May 9, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
May 9, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back again, folks.
Again, we come to you from Los Angeles today on the EIB network.
Been out here since Friday, have had a fabulous time.
I love it in California.
I've always lived down here for three and a half years in the 80s, and I have all every time I come out here, I don't care what part of the state I get, even Eureka.
Even up there, Humboldt County.
I even like it when I go up there.
Haven't been up there in a long time.
Don't plan to go back, but I did like it when I was there.
This is the EIB Network and L Rush Ball with broadcast excellence.
I am your highly trained broadcast specialist, reminding you I make it look easy.
Don't try this at home.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
Just love this, uh, folks.
Two stories in the New York Times today, both by Robin Toner, uh headline Optimistic Comma.
Democrats debate the party's vision.
And they have accompanying story about one of the Democrats involved in a debate over the vision, and the headline, Liberal of the Lost Generation senses a shift.
A drive-by media continuing with its obsession, getting the Democrats back in power.
By the way, this might be an excellent time for me to explain to you my latest mathematical formula, ladies and gentlemen, and mentioned this in the previous hour.
Everybody is uh is wondering.
How can it be that the mainstream media, the drive-by media, is losing so much influence, and they are, I mean, you see the newspaper circulation, we had the numbers yesterday down to TV ratings down uh compared to all-time highs back in the eighties?
There is a new media out there that consists of talk radio, Fox News, the blogosphere, and they don't have their monopoly anymore.
They don't they don't have the automatic ability in one night to shape opinion on anything.
They used to have that power.
They don't any longer.
But despite the fact that they are losing influence, how at the same time are they able to do so much damage?
This requires a formula, much like Einstein had his uh theory of relativity.
E equals M C squared.
Because after all, admit it, this is a this is a great question for that you ask yourselves, how can this possibly be?
It's the puzzle of the decade.
How can a drive-by media in such disrepute create so much negativity?
Employment is up, unemployment is down, retirement funds are up, household net worth is up, consumer confidence is up, home ownership is up, virtually every economic statistic that matters is up.
How can the reality be so good and the perception be so bad?
Well, much as Einstein had his theory of relativity, uh, we here at the Limbaugh Institute have come up with our own theory of relativity for the mainstream media.
Here's the formula.
And we'll put this on the website so you can actually see it.
You can uh uh play around with it yourself.
Uh here's the formula as expressed M M I equals B S times T squared.
M M I equals B S times T squared.
Here's what the symbols in the formula mean.
MMI is mainstream media influence.
We could we could call it DBI.
Uh drive by uh well DBM I drive by media influence.
B S equals, of course, B at Barbara Streisand, and uh tie, uh the T equals a time and days.
So uh the formula is MMI equals B S times time squared, T squared.
Time squared.
That is the media effect, day after day, gloom, day after day pessimism, day after day.
Housing bubble, day after day class warfare, day after day, high gasoline price, day after day, no future.
Day after day, your kids inheriting a giant deficit.
They'll never be able to have the life that their parents had.
Then they'll earn little stories in the so-called evening news.
Did you lose your job today?
Will you lose your job tomorrow?
Will your neighbor lose his job tomorrow?
Did your neighbor lose his last three jobs during the Bush administration?
I think who I'm not sure who said this.
Uh a lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Was that Was that Joseph Goebbels?
And to be a Nazi that did it.
If there was ever a need for the uh limbaugh theory of relativity, it is now, today, this time in our nation's history.
The drive-by media influence on the economy is one thing.
I mean, that's that's about money.
But that influence, the drive-by media influence on the war on Islamo fascism is another thing.
That's about lives.
That's about the future of civilization.
How can vital interests, national security, and so forth be turned into doom and gloom?
Easy.
MMI equals BS times T squared.
Times squared, day after day, bad news, day after day, if it bleeds, it leads.
Day after day, we don't want to take sides with America because we're not sure that America deserves to win because we're not sure that America is itself a just cause anymore.
By the way, the limbaugh theory, my formula here, works just as well with our leadership.
We need a strong president to deal with the Iran problem.
We need a strong president to lead a flaccid United Nations, strong president try to inspire a tired, worn-out Europe.
So how can this president with this economy and this domestic peace be so low in the polls?
MMI equals BS times T squared.
The BS is everything.
Everything he does is wrong.
Every decision he makes is wrong.
Every nominee he names is wrong.
Every time he speaks, it's wrong.
The limbaugh theory of relativity explains it all.
It's not the criticism, it's not the specific items mentioned, it's the day after day after day after day after day of unceasing media attacks.
And I I'm gonna I'm I'll tell you, I have a theory also about Bush's approval numbers.
This business of being a 31% now doesn't make any sense.
If you measure this in terms that have always been used to define presidential popularity in the past, why, given this economy, his polls ought to at least be 50.
You'd have to subtract some because people are uneasy about the war and they're uneasy about because we are fighting it in a minimal minimalist way.
We could we could be done with this like we could have been done with Vietnam a much shorter period of time.
We don't have the the guts to do what it would take in one fell swoop to win, so we meander along.
Um there are some other things, but the economy ought to be bringing this up, but it's not.
And if you look deeply in some of the most recent polls, you find that there are conservatives who are unhappy with Bush and Republicans, which I have always maintained.
Uh, and it's about agenda items.
It's about conservatism that's not being implemented or even fought for.
So there's that.
Uh, but I also think that there's a fatigue factor.
Uh this administration has not done a whole lot to defend itself.
It has left that to others.
And I think there's a general fatigue among everybody.
You, I mean, you if I go out, you talk to people, people think Bush is doing it.
You get tired of trying to explain it.
Folks, I must admit, even I uh get tired sometimes having to defend this one.
They don't seem to think it's necessary.
They think every news cycle has a uh uh a lifespan that's gonna end of its own, and that is they're gonna sustain it if they if they respond to all this.
So there have been some uh exceptions to this uh during the course of the past six years, but there are a number of things.
I but in terms of this 31%, which is the new low and whatever poll, or 35 or 36, in terms of this being an accurate representation of what people in this country actually think about Bush or about uh current economic circumstance, I don't think it's legitimate.
And I'm not saying it's it's being fudged in the in the in the polling, it could be some of that.
We run into examples where polling companies have oversampled Democrats, for example, to achieve certain results that they want.
But there's something about this that just doesn't, it doesn't make sense in any of the ways that we have measured approval in the past.
So uh one of two things that either it is legitimate and there's a whole new way of measuring it that we haven't figured out or caught up to, or it's uh it's it's just gobbledygook and part of the oddball kooky times uh in which we uh in which we live.
Now, I gotta take a break here, we'll come back and I'll I'll share you the story of the New York Times about the Democrats once again meeting uh to debate the uh party's vision.
And I'll just give you a quick heads up.
When you print this story out, and I'm not suggesting you do this.
That's why I'm here.
I will I will immerse myself in this garbage so that you don't have to.
I will synthesize it for you and and spare you the frustration, the trouble, the anger of reading it yourself.
I can summarize this simply by saying after four pages, they don't have a vision in a story headlined, optimistic Democrats debate the party's vision.
It's patently obvious when you finish this, they still don't have one.
Be right back.
Stay with us.
I'll tell you what, the gallery watching this program has just expanded.
It can people keep sneaking in there on the other side of the glass.
Great to have you all.
Hope you're having a great time.
Don't leave.
Rush Limbaugh back.
Rather than do the New York Times thing, I want to go to the phones.
People have been waiting patiently here, and I don't want to be too rude.
We'll go to uh Troy, New York.
Steve, I appreciate your patience and welcome to the program.
Hey, Russ, what uh Russ Friendold and uh the new uh the new CIA chair in the news again.
I think uh it deserves revisiting the whole NSA meet scandal.
Because he was asked how it hurt national security.
In fact, now Alberto Gonzalez was asked in Senate testimony, how exposing the fact that we're listening in on Al Qaeda's calls, hurt national security.
And what Alberto Gonzalez said was well, if we keep reminding Al Qaeda that we're listening to him, you know, they they won't forget.
Uh and they might forget if we stop reminding them.
And everyone roundly laughed at him.
So I I wanted to get your take.
How did that leak hurt our national security?
How did the leak of the NSA foreign surveillance program in on compromise security?
Now again, um I'm having trouble understanding you because you're obviously on a cheap Radio Shack phone.
Uh could you could you explain what who what did it what again did Gonzalez say?
What Gonzalez said was that if we didn't have the media constantly reminding Al Qaeda that we are listening in on their telephone conversations, they might forget.
And even Republicans laughed at that.
That's that was his explanation for how the leak of the Okay, I get it.
So your point, your your point is that these Al Qaeda goons are smart enough to know that their calls are being monitored anyway, whether uh the United States admits it or not.
Well, really, Russ, what my question is for you, how did this leak hurt our national security?
You can't be serious.
I I very much am.
You can't hear you already knew.
You you can't be serious with this question.
Oh, please, Russ, inform me.
How did Tel and I call Al Qaeda that we are spying on them hurt our national security?
Did they not know that?
Uh they got away with it prior to 9-11.
We found out all the phone calls that were going from all of those hijackers, well, three or four of them primarily, even Massawi was calling the paymaster and the money man and the organizer who happened to be in Dubai.
Uh uh, we knew that they were talking to people outside the country.
Uh that whole event was planned on the phone with those hijackers in this country.
Oh, so today's a lot of people.
So they wait a second.
They got away with it once.
They got away with it once.
Who and and and uh you'd have to you probably you have to think that they don't know what our full capabilities are.
But if you really think that releasing the existence of that program, why don't we just release every spy program we have since everybody around the world is smart enough to figure out we're doing it anyway?
They didn't know under your theory.
Russ, they didn't release the capabilities, and unless you're saying that Al Qaeda is now using smoke signals and no longer talking on the phone, then then what's your point?
They trained, they change phones all the time.
That's the point.
This program's pretty massive.
They use satellite phones, they use cell phones, disposable cell phones, they don't use the same phone number all the time.
It is very difficult to track because they are trying to be uh uh not caught.
We are trying to devise systems to get around every technique that they use.
The fact that we're doing it gets blown sky high.
Uh I mean it it it's uh under your question or your theory about this, no spy program is worth it because everybody, every bad guy in the world knows we're probably spying on him, and uh since it doesn't stop them from committing other acts, we may as well not even spy.
I mean, where do you take this logically?
I mean the idea that that that uh the leak didn't do any damage is absurd.
I appreciate the call, though.
Joe in Salt Lake City, you're next.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Great.
Thank you, Rush.
Glad to be here.
Thank you, sir.
Uh, if I could take just two seconds to deviate from what I was going to say to rebuke your last caller, uh seems to be unaware of the fact that when we were tracking Osama bin Laden, we were doing so effectively by cell phone until the media put out that we were tracking him by cell phone, at which point they stopped using it.
We lost track of him.
Just a little side note to his conversation.
Well, of course.
I am common sense here.
Uh on my subject, um, in listening to your program, I just wanted to set the record straight a little bit on the whole uh foreign eavesdropping uh program.
Uh people seem to have an impression that what happens is the president wakes up in the morning, waves a magic wand because he has carte blanche and says, that guy out there in the blue suit, and by afternoon we're listening into his conversation and know what pizza he's ordering.
And that's the image that the media wants to portray that wishes some type of totalitarian.
Yeah, but that's not how it happens.
I mean, uh I and that's what you're gonna say that is not how it happens.
Of course not.
They have computers that are doing data mining, computers, keyword searching, listening in.
It's it's impossible for human beings to do all that's being done.
So it has to first be synthesized by a computer, and then after the computer kicks things out, that's when the human beings get involved.
Exactly.
And even if there was a direct uh need, and they said we want to listen to such and such person, first it has to go to the agency director for approval, then it goes to the office of Office of Policy and Review for approval, then he goes to the attorney general for approval, then it goes to the Fisk Court.
And uh one of the uh media biases that they had was during Gonzalez's confirmation, they asked him how many of these requests are being denied by the Fisk Court.
And his answer was essentially, well, not many, if any, are being denied.
And that left the impression that anybody that gets picked for eavesdropping will be approved.
No, but there's no uh oversight.
The reality is many of those requests get denied before they ever get to the Fisk Court.
So the Fisk Court doesn't really need to deny many of them.
They've gone through quite a filtering process.
I know, but you're right.
The whole thing the whole thing has been miscast and mischaracterized as domestic spying with uh with Bush personally.
He gets out of bed like nine o'clock in the morning whenever he gets up and goes over to the spy phone and chooses okay.
I'm gonna I'm gonna listen in to John Kerry today, order chili at the ski lodge out in Idaho.
Bam hits a button, and there's John Kerry on the phone.
Uh television shows and movies make it uh plausible for people to believe something like that happens.
This is such a massive, massive program of of data mining via computer first.
Uh and of course, the one thing that never gets mentioned in all this is our echelon system, which dwarfs this NSA business, uh this particular NSA program.
The echelon's uh program monitors virtually everything worldwide, and it was uh uh implemented during the Clinton administration.
Uh and there's that was already so much.
I mean you can you could look at all these cameras that communities are putting at intersections to see if you ran a red light or didn't pay the toll at the bridge or what happens.
I mean, at some point uh when is that become an invasion of privacy?
Uh when when is that spying and when is it not spying?
Uh but this program has been so miscast by Democrats as domestic spying that has they they don't even allow that it is necessary or relevant that the kind of spying going on is relevant to national security.
It is just plain pure voyeurism by an administration doesn't care about anybody's civil rights and human rights and any of that sort of stuff.
And that's why it's contemptible and uh and irresponsible.
Uh blah blah blah.
Adam in uh Royal Oak, Michigan.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Mr. Ross Limbaugh, mega music lover ditto.
It is a profound honor to speak with you, sir.
I'm a longtime listener and a first-time caller, and I'm a little nervous, so pardon me if I stammer a little bit.
But uh, I want to say that uh I I think that the Democrats and the Liberals uh are are really so out of touch because they view the war on terror and the war in Iraq, which is which is the same thing, as something that is just a matter of policy and it's you know unnecessary and that we should instead be opening opening up a a dialogue with our enemies and that terrorism isn't as big as say you know World War II.
I think that's I think that's that you did very well.
You said what you had to say in a limited amount of time.
Shakespeare said it, brevity is the soul of wit.
I think you're a good job of nailing where they are on this, at least publicly.
Be right back.
No.
I'm sorry, you have more time if you wish to embellish your brain.
Uh if you compare World War II and the war on terror, I mean, the latter is is much more of an immediate direct threat.
And And as you say, uh they cannot and they should not, the liberals, uh, be trusted with leadership and power in this country until well, ever, in my opinion.
So that's uh that's not me.
There's nothing they could do to redeem themselves in the area of uh leadership in your mind.
I think um, in the immortal words of someone like uh Ann Walter and maybe even yourself, um, the only thing they could do to redeem themselves is to uh become conservatives.
Um, or move.
Yeah, the Cuba.
I mean, you know, uh appreciate the call, Adam.
Thanks, uh, thanks very much.
All right, we have to take a brief time out, ladies and gentlemen.
Broadcast excellence continues in mere moments.
Won't be long, and we will be right back.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have as usual, half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair.
I this is just too delicious to pass up.
Optimistic, Democrats debate the party's vision.
How many meetings is this now that we know about?
They probably had more meetings than we know about, but they write about a number of these meetings.
The media gets a dry body to get so excited.
They pant like a bunch of rabbit dogs.
Democrats meeting again to discuss agenda and vision.
It's supposed to be heartstopping, earth-shattering, stop the presses type event.
With Democrats increasingly optimistic about this year's midterm elections, that's right, because they're even referring to Nancy Pelosi as speaker to be Pelosi, uh, and optimistic about the landscape of 2008.
Intellectuals in the center and on the left are debating how to sharpen the party's identity and present a clear alternative to the conservatism that's dominated political thought for generations.
See, the first problem is getting intellectuals involved, these these elites, these pointy heads that think they're smarter than everybody else in the room, if they can't figure out that they've already made clear that they are an alternative.
What do they think the Wellstone Memorial was?
What do they think their their criticism of Bush for breathing is?
What do they think they have been doing for the last five years?
That's their problem.
They think they haven't gotten their message out, and they have.
Everybody knows who they are, what they stand for, and are getting bolder about showing that every day.
Many of these analysts, these intellectuals, uh both liberals and moderates.
No such thing as a liberal moderate, no such thing as a Democrat moderate in this meeting.
They are convinced the Democrats face a moment of historic opportunity.
The heavy breathing gets quicker paced.
They say that the country is weary of war and division and ready, if given a compelling choice, to reject the Republicans and change the country's direction.
They argue that the Democratic Party showing signs of new health, intense party discipline on Capitol Hill, a host of policy proposals and an energized base.
Which will be their ruination.
But some of these analysts argue that the party needs something more than a pastiche of policy proposals.
It needs a broader vision, a narrative, they say, to return to power and govern effectively what some describe as an unapologetic appeal to the common good.
Oh, that's what they came up with.
They get in the meeting room and they said, Let's try the common good.
We need a broad vision.
This is recycled PAP.
It's recycled psychobebel, the common good.
Oh, that sounds wonderful.
Who could be against the common good?
But they need to describe this unapologetic appeal to the common good to big goals like expanding affordable health coverage and to occasional sacrifice for the sake of the nation as a whole.
What are high gas prices?
They've been asking us to sacrifice.
Hello, Shelby Steele.
We're back to this this stigmatization, this guilt.
Why, we can't fight a war without sacrificing.
Why we can't live without sacrificing.
Why we are causing global warming.
We are causing death, destruction, and murder.
We are causing torture and humiliation.
We are destroying the ozone hall.
We must sacrifice.
That means raise your taxes.
It's just a new way of saying it.
This emerging critique reflects for many a hunger to move beyond the carefully calibrated centrism that marked the Clinton years, which was itself the product of the last big effort to redefine the Democratic Party.
You have to keep redefining yourselves.
It means that you're unafraid to be who you are.
You're afraid to be who you are.
You don't redefine yourself.
You are who you are.
The party's what it is.
This analysis is also in large part a rejection of the more tactical consultant-driven politics that dominated the party's presidential and congressional campaigns in the last six years, the emphasis on targeted issues like prescription drugs for retirees, careful constituent-based appeals.
Michael Tomaski, editor of the American Prospect, and this, folks, this publication, Pravda West.
I mean, this American prospect, we've had our run-ins with some of these little clowns at American Prospect over the years.
It's fun to spar with these people, but I mean they're they're no moderates there.
They might think they are, but they're not.
This guy Tomaski is then profiled in another story in the New York Times by the same writer that wrote this story.
This guy says that they don't have a philosophy, a big idea that unites our proposals and converts them from a hodgepodge of narrow and specific fixes into a vision for society.
A broader vision, many of these analysts say will help the Democratic Party counter the charge so often advanced by Republicans that the Democrats are merely a collection of interest groups, labor, civil rights, abortion rights, and the like, each consume with their own agenda rather than the nation.
And that's exactly what they are, and there's nothing they can do to change it.
That's who they've always been.
They are an amalgamation of individual constituency groups.
And getting these groups to unite on things is it's crazy.
Let me just look, as I said, the sum total of this is there is no vision.
In four long pages here, Democrats debate the party's vision.
After four pages, they don't detail one.
There isn't one.
And the story really is a concession that they don't have a vision.
They had to meet to come up with one, and they failed.
And that's a tremendous self-indictment.
What on earth is the purpose of a political party if not to propose a set of ideas that advance a vision of America?
For Democrats to concede they don't really know what they stand for is um well, it's nothing new, but it actually adds up to self-criticism.
Now that party, Democratic Party, uh at least liberalism in the far left, is the source of energy and money for that party.
And they do have a vision.
The kook fringe base that animates this party, and it's getting it all in trouble.
It's providing the fundraising and all of that.
This is what their vision is.
This is what they stand for.
Higher taxes, more regulations, larger government, abortion on demand, eliminating God from the public square, government control of health care, opposition to school choice, opposition to reforms for greater accountability and education.
They are for activist judges inventing law from the bench, often at the express uh against the express will of the American people.
They resist and mock the concept of freedom spreading to the Arab world and other parts of the planet.
They are for cutting and running in Iraq.
They oppose the Patriot Act.
They oppose efforts by the president to intercept calls to and from Al Qaeda in this country.
That's what the liberal wing of the modern Democratic Party stands for.
And in fact, I would add a couple things to that, off the top of my head, you could add the fact that they have a genuine disgust for the country.
They abhor the United States military.
The trouble for the Democrats is that that party is the party of contemporary liberalism and contemporary liberalism is so flawed that it cannot win national elections.
It doesn't have a prayer unless they mask it and camouflage it.
Now there is there is a lot of this piece of it, the common good.
The common good.
Sounds mighty high minded.
Who can be against the common good?
But you know, it's interesting to look at some of these ideas like the common good closer.
If liberals and Democrats want to promote the common good, there's a simple way that they could show us how to do it, or that they're real serious about doing it.
And that is joining with the rest of us and unifying around the proposition that it is crucial to defeat Islamic fascism.
But as long as they are going to invest in our defeat in that war, and as long as they are going to suggest, as Feingold did at the National Press Club yesterday, that it is our fault, partially that terrorists attack us, then I'm sorry.
All of their yabbering on about the common good is just a bunch of BS.
They don't care about the common good.
The common good will be whatever they define it to be within the concepts of them utilizing their power.
But I think the common good could be found in destroying these fanatics who want to torture and maim and kill millions and millions of people.
That's something it could do for the common good, but they're not interested.
How about liberating people from unbelievably sadistic and cruel dictators rather than sidling up to these dictators?
Their best buddies are Castro and Hugo Chavez.
And of course, President Who?
Of the Chicons.
They align with these people, particularly when Republican presidents are in office.
How about advocating tax and spend policies that lead to economic growth and prosperity?
Oh, can't do that because they need victims.
My point is all of this talk about the common good is as BS as everything else they're trying to sell.
They're not interested in the real common good.
They are interested in their power and then being able to exercise it in ways that maximize and cement their power.
How about drilling in and war?
They're out there whining and moaning about the high price of gasoline.
Can't go get our own supply, though.
Nope.
Why gotta protect the environment?
Why can't have any oil spills out?
Why, no, we can't let Bush and Cheney and Halliburton profit from going into Anwar anywhere.
Oh, we can't do that.
At the same time, we have to sit there and complain about big oil raping everybody when in fact most of the reasons that gasoline prices are going up can be found right in Washington, D.C. Republicans complicit in this too over the years, but the fact is if they're interested in the common good, uh, there's a number of things we could do.
They're after energy independence, a lot of things we could do to get closer to that that they themselves oppose, all the while telling us they care about the common good.
You know what I think this story is?
I think this story is a bunch of polsters, did a bunch of focus groups, and they told Democrats they have to come up with slogans that make it appear as if they're not beholden to polsters and focus groups, because the Democrats are known that they focus group and test lines and so forth, so the pollster said, uh they're on to us.
So you gotta come up with uh a vision here that doesn't sound like it comes from polling.
And lo and behold, the story ends up on the front page of the New York Times.
Sort of funny how that happens.
And I'll tell you, you know, folks, we we uh we Republicans, we conservatives sometimes we get depressed down in the dumps, frustrated and so forth.
But I'm gonna tell you this.
This article and others that have preceded it, in which the Democrats are mightily struggling in vain to find out what they believe in, to come up with a vision, to come up with a way to explain what they believe in.
Reminds me that for all of our supposed problems, we are still the dominant philosophy in American politics.
We are the philosophy in the movement that has ideas.
We are honest, we are willing to go to people and say here, and we're proud to do it.
We flex our muscles, we're concerned.
Yes, it's what I believe.
And you ought to believe it too, because it's the best thing for you and your family in the country.
We don't try to mask it, and we'll debate anything.
And we have all kinds of debates over ideas in the open within our movement and party.
We don't run around saying, Who am I?
Why am I?
What do I believe?
Why am I here?
We don't go ask, we're not into self- uh uh analysis in that sense, uh introspection.
We're not constantly asking people to figure out who we are as we try to figure ourselves out.
So this story is is uh clear illustration that they're still lost, wandering aimlessly, haven't the slightest clue what to do, because they know they can't be honest.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
All right, we're back on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network, Rush Limboy in Los Angeles.
Let's go to San Diego.
Trent, glad you waited.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Great to talk to you.
Thanks for taking the show.
I understand it.
Get your take on uh watched on C SPAN this morning.
Um they had uh piece on a new book called With All Our Might uh by the Is it called with all our might defeating jihadism and defending liberty?
That's correct.
That's the book.
And one of their points that really amused me and I I thought was uh funny was they they said that they want to take an active um the Democratic Party.
It was it was mostly a book giving the Democratic Party their talking points and direction, and they wanted to start to spread democracy.
And uh they wanted to use the military as a part of that, and they said that it was their idea first, and that the reason why Bush isn't doing it doing it very well is because it hasn't been a Republican idea for very long.
So they're gonna be better at spreading democracy because they've they've had the idea for longer.
I I I didn't see this, but I've got there's a little blurb about this in the uh in the Washington Times today.
Democrats, I'll just read it.
It's very short what it says.
The book, by the way, is by Evan Bai, Senator Evan Bye from Democrat uh Indiana, Democrat and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, and seventeen Democratic Foreign Policy Wonks, analysts, and pollsters have written the book.
So the book has 19 authors.
Uh and it is with all with all our might defeating jihadism and defending liberty.
Um here's one of the the blurbs.
Uh instead of falling back on easy criticisms of the administration's blunders in Iraq, the new book argues that progressives should seize the moment by proposing a comprehensive agenda for winning the war against jihadist terrorism, an agenda rooted in the tough-minded internationalist tradition of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.
Yeah.
I don't want to.
Hello?
Yeah, go ahead.
Oh, I'm sorry.
One of the uh comments that uh Senator uh was the Senator Bay, is that correct?
Yeah, Senator Evan Bye.
If it wasn't by yeah, his his comment was when we when we argue with the Republicans in the future, we we don't need to get caught up in the details of our ideas.
We need to just show them the vision of the future.
W which I mean, uh of course all of us have the same vision of the future.
We all want you know, happiness, freedom, you know, you know, all the all the good things that the problem is how to get there, and that's what he doesn't want to talk about.
Uh well, that's true.
I mean, it I was uh uh my instinct was to disagree with you because I don't think we do agree on certain futures.
Uh but if you're talking domestically, yeah, everybody does want uh well, no, I'm um I used to say this myself.
Uh when when talking to a liberal, I'm gonna I'm gonna change my mind about this, because I actually now don't think that they think our vision of America is possible.
I don't think that they believe in a rising philosophy of of uh uh prosperity and and uh continued economic growth.
I think they are so guilt-laden uh uh and they're so obsessed with needing victims that they are more interested in convincing as many people as possible that their future is bleak.
They are not optimistic.
Now these guys may be trying to turn that around a little bit, these uh these uh 19 uh writers and so forth, but it sounds to me like it's just a rehash of John Kerry's campaign.
If you if you if you boil down the carry campaign, it was this.
Well, I can do it better, and I can do it smarter, and we need to be smarter.
And that's what these guys are saying.
We need uh fine gold setup.
We need to be smart.
Well, I don't know where this comes from.
I guess it it it uh derives from their collective uh assumption that Bush is a is a is a dunce, though they know that's uh not the case.
But if they're gonna go out and say that because of their predecessors, Roosevelt, you know what?
They would impeach Roosevelt today.
I know Alamont.
We got to take a commercial break, folks.
Nobody has confidence in me to run my own show anymore because of yesterday.
Go ahead and take the break.
Go ahead.
Fastest three hours in media, two of them down.
We have one to go.
Sit tight and be patient.
We'll be back and continue uh right after this.
▲
Export Selection